Should the names of the AIG bonus receivers be made public ?

[Modelworks]

AIG has said it is giving the name of the bonus receivers to the authorities. AIG has received hundreds of death threats, so would releasing the names to the public make those people targets ? Or should the names be withheld ?

I'm thinking withhold the names unless we are willing to provide protection for them. As angry as people are it would be like throwing them to the wolves, even if they might deserve it.

 

[halik]

No reason for that, just take the money back and call it a day.
I can't think of a good reason to publish that info (outside some sort of misguided vendetta); the focus should be on recovering the funds.

 

[LTC8K6]

There's no reason for anyone to be angry about these bonuses except the recipients, who are now being targeted for political gain.

 

[Craig234]

No. There's no public need for the names of those employees. And we don't need to make the process of a government bailout more onerous than needed, possibly preventing it.

 

[LTC8K6]

This will likely cost the government more in legal fees when the lawsuits start.

Why not just take 165 million back from AIG and call it even?

Why go through all this tax rigamarole to try and take the money from the employees?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
This will likely cost the government more in legal fees when the lawsuits start.

Why not just take 165 million back from AIG and call it even?

Why go through all this tax rigamarole to try and take the money from the employees?

Because the point in the taxpayer dollars going to 'bonuses' is not to let it go to bonuses and take the money out of the other uses it's intended for.

 

[LTC8K6]

That made no sense.

The employees have nothing to do with this. They held up their end of a contract.

They agreed to stay for a period so they could collect a retention bonus at the end of that period.

Now they have done their part as agreed and won't get paid.

That's what a retention bonus is. Hang in there with me for another year, and you will get a bonus, then you can leave.

 

[StageLeft]

no

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
That made no sense.

The employees have nothing to do with this. They held up their end of a contract.

They agreed to stay for a period so they could collect a retention bonus at the end of that period.

Now they have done their part as agreed and won't get paid.

That's what a retention bonus is. Hang in there with me for another year, and you will get a bonus, then you can leave.

No, your post is making no sense, in saying that mine didn't.

There are two issues here you seem to be confusing.

One is the merit of the bonuses, whether they should be withdrawn or not.

The second is whether, if they should be withdrawn, it'd be a good way to do it to simply take back the same amount of money from other areas and leave the bonuses paid.

You first posted on the second issue, and I answered that issue. But you then responded with arguments about the first issue.

If you want to argue not to cancel the bonuses, argue that. But you asked if it makes sense to cancel them by taking money from other funging. No. That defeats the purpose.

 

[chess9]

We don't know anything about the people who received the bonuses. Did they single-handedly, or in concert, bring down the American economy or some constituent part? Probably not. But, even if they did, disclosing their names would not help the government or us, and would subject them to the possibility of physical harm. Who wants that on their conscience?

So, no. This is a very very bad idea.

-Robert

 

[Fern]

No.

The right to privacy etc.

Threats etc.

I see no good reason for releasing that data whatsoever.

Fern

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: chess9
We don't know anything about the people who received the bonuses. Did they single-handedly, or in concert, bring down the American economy or some constituent part? Probably not. But, even if they did, disclosing their names would not help the government or us, and would subject them to the possibility of physical harm. Who wants that on their conscience?

So, no. This is a very very bad idea.

-Robert

For more clarity on who's receiving the bonuses and if they are responsible for the mess and how are they receiving a retaining bonus if they have left the company, here is a clip form the AIG hearing yesterday.

Text

Drag the slider to around 4hrs 22mins and wait till the questions were answered which ends around 4hrs 29min.

 

[Jiggz]

How come there is no choice of making public the names of those politicians responsible why this kind of stupidity happened? Like those who received the highest campaign contributions from AIG! AIG was just following its contract.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
That made no sense.

The employees have nothing to do with this. They held up their end of a contract.

They agreed to stay for a period so they could collect a retention bonus at the end of that period.

Now they have done their part as agreed and won't get paid.

That's what a retention bonus is. Hang in there with me for another year, and you will get a bonus, then you can leave.

No, your post is making no sense, in saying that mine didn't.

There are two issues here you seem to be confusing.

One is the merit of the bonuses, whether they should be withdrawn or not.

The second is whether, if they should be withdrawn, it'd be a good way to do it to simply take back the same amount of money from other areas and leave the bonuses paid.

You first posted on the second issue, and I answered that issue. But you then responded with arguments about the first issue.

If you want to argue not to cancel the bonuses, argue that. But you asked if it makes sense to cancel them by taking money from other funging. No. That defeats the purpose.

You're arguing the assumption that they are using tax dollars, and taking money from other needs. How are you going to tell me where that money came from? Why is that $165 million part of the TARP funds? How would taking that money back from a "different" place change anything? Who are you to differentiate AIG's liquid assets?

You are basically arguing that AIG has the legal right to break all previous contracts now that they have received taxpayer money. Utter insanity.

Maybe you should be asking your friends in Congress why they are feigning outrage now over something that they knowingly approved of when they signed the bill?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: chess9
We don't know anything about the people who received the bonuses. Did they single-handedly, or in concert, bring down the American economy or some constituent part? Probably not. But, even if they did, disclosing their names would not help the government or us, and would subject them to the possibility of physical harm. Who wants that on their conscience?

So, no. This is a very very bad idea.

-Robert

For more clarity on who's receiving the bonuses and if they are responsible for the mess and how are they receiving a retaining bonus if they have left the company, here is a clip form the AIG hearing yesterday.

Text

Drag the slider to around 4hrs 22mins and wait till the questions were answered which ends around 4hrs 29min.

I'm running Windows 7, 64 bit, and my Windows Media Player doesn't work. Are you saying we know all we need to know about the players?

-Robert

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: chess9
We don't know anything about the people who received the bonuses. Did they single-handedly, or in concert, bring down the American economy or some constituent part? Probably not. But, even if they did, disclosing their names would not help the government or us, and would subject them to the possibility of physical harm. Who wants that on their conscience?

So, no. This is a very very bad idea.

-Robert

For more clarity on who's receiving the bonuses and if they are responsible for the mess and how are they receiving a retaining bonus if they have left the company, here is a clip form the AIG hearing yesterday.

Text

Drag the slider to around 4hrs 22mins and wait till the questions were answered which ends around 4hrs 29min.

I'm running Windows 7, 64 bit, and my Windows Media Player doesn't work. Are you saying we know all we need to know about the players?

-Robert

Liddy has testified that the remaining employees of AIG FP were not involved in the trades that got the company in trouble. They're the ones who are sticking around to wind down the company.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
That made no sense.

The employees have nothing to do with this. They held up their end of a contract.

They agreed to stay for a period so they could collect a retention bonus at the end of that period.

Now they have done their part as agreed and won't get paid.

That's what a retention bonus is. Hang in there with me for another year, and you will get a bonus, then you can leave.

No, your post is making no sense, in saying that mine didn't.

There are two issues here you seem to be confusing.

One is the merit of the bonuses, whether they should be withdrawn or not.

The second is whether, if they should be withdrawn, it'd be a good way to do it to simply take back the same amount of money from other areas and leave the bonuses paid.

You first posted on the second issue, and I answered that issue. But you then responded with arguments about the first issue.

If you want to argue not to cancel the bonuses, argue that. But you asked if it makes sense to cancel them by taking money from other funging. No. That defeats the purpose.

You're arguing the assumption that they are using tax dollars, and taking money from other needs. How are you going to tell me where that money came from? Why is that $165 million part of the TARP funds? How would taking that money back from a "different" place change anything? Who are you to differentiate AIG's liquid assets?

If we give them $X for a purpose, and they return part of the money, it's reasonable to say that the money comes out ofthe funds for that purpose.

Technically, sure, they might take the money out of some other area in the company and still fully pay the original amount for the bailout, but why would they?

You certainly have no reason to assume that. The default assumption that's reasonable is that the money comes out of the bailout funds, and that function is less funded.

You are basically arguing that AIG has the legal right to break all previous contracts now that they have received taxpayer money. Utter insanity.

No, I'm not. The legal rights issue is one I did not address, another issue, that again goes to the merit of cancelling the bonuses at all, rather than the issue we're discussing.

Maybe you should be asking your friends in Congress why they are feigning outrage now over something that they knowingly approved of when they signed the bill?

It's not that complicated, is it?

In the worst case, they're going along with a mob mentality for political reasons, and choosing a bad policy.

In the better case, they're re-fighting the battle they lost before where they gave in to pressure from Treasury, and the public's mood has let them now reverse that loss.

Whether it's feigned or not, I can't say. It's ridiculous to suggest that every member of congress is familiar with every detail in a bill like this.

Bottom line, when something that 'sounded like a good idea at the time' turns into the public outcry that this did, what are they going to do?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: chess9
We don't know anything about the people who received the bonuses. Did they single-handedly, or in concert, bring down the American economy or some constituent part? Probably not. But, even if they did, disclosing their names would not help the government or us, and would subject them to the possibility of physical harm. Who wants that on their conscience?

So, no. This is a very very bad idea.

-Robert

For more clarity on who's receiving the bonuses and if they are responsible for the mess and how are they receiving a retaining bonus if they have left the company, here is a clip form the AIG hearing yesterday.

Text

Drag the slider to around 4hrs 22mins and wait till the questions were answered which ends around 4hrs 29min.

I'm running Windows 7, 64 bit, and my Windows Media Player doesn't work. Are you saying we know all we need to know about the players?

-Robert

Fern did a nice summary in the other thread. The only correction is it's AIGFP, Financial Products.

I saw it. I'll help.

In testimony, Liddy describes AIG as a holding company.

The trouble was one of it's divisions AIGIP (that's was it sounded like to me? Maybe it's AIG Investment Products?).

He describes AIGIP as being divied into 3 groups ("boxes"), one handled the (toxic) derivities, another credit swaps and the 3rd was hedging etc.

2 of these caused the huge losses, not the 3rd.

None of the people now getting bonuses were involved in the problem areas, in fact they are all long gone.

The people who are getting big bonuses (from what I can tell) were in the third, non-problem causing dividision of AIGIP. They are people not responsible for the big problems, rather they were brought to liquidate ("close the books" is the phrase he used) aspects of that division and when that was completed they were scheduled to leave.

So, while many seem shocked that 'retention bonuses' were paid to people who have already left - it is perfectly understandable and appropriate IMO. The retention bonuses were intended to pursuade them to remain until they were finished, which they did, and then paid to them after the job was completed, which they were.

I don't see why you would pay a retention bonus to someone upfront while they were still there. They could then just quit and take the money with them. You need to wait until they finish, then pay them.

Fern

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: chess9
We don't know anything about the people who received the bonuses. Did they single-handedly, or in concert, bring down the American economy or some constituent part? Probably not. But, even if they did, disclosing their names would not help the government or us, and would subject them to the possibility of physical harm. Who wants that on their conscience?

So, no. This is a very very bad idea.

-Robert

For more clarity on who's receiving the bonuses and if they are responsible for the mess and how are they receiving a retaining bonus if they have left the company, here is a clip form the AIG hearing yesterday.

Text

Drag the slider to around 4hrs 22mins and wait till the questions were answered which ends around 4hrs 29min.

I'm running Windows 7, 64 bit, and my Windows Media Player doesn't work. Are you saying we know all we need to know about the players?

-Robert

Fern did a nice summary in the other thread.

I saw it. I'll help.

In testimony, Liddy describes AIG as a holding company.

The trouble was one of it's divisions AIGIP (that's was it sounded like to me? Maybe it's AIG Investment Products?).

He describes AIGIP as being divied into 3 groups ("boxes"), one handled the (toxic) derivities, another credit swaps and the 3rd was hedging etc.

2 of these caused the huge losses, not the 3rd.

None of the people now getting bonuses were involved in the problem areas, in fact they are all long gone.

The people who are getting big bonuses (from what I can tell) were in the third, non-problem causing dividision of AIGIP. They are people not responsible for the big problems, rather they were brought to liquidate ("close the books" is the phrase he used) aspects of that division and when that was completed they were scheduled to leave.

So, while many seem shocked that 'retention bonuses' were paid to people who have already left - it is perfectly understandable and appropriate IMO. The retention bonuses were intended to pursuade them to remain until they were finished, which they did, and then paid to them after the job was completed, which they were.

I don't see why you would pay a retention bonus to someone upfront while they were still there. They could then just quit and take the money with them. You need to wait until they finish, then pay them.

Fern

Ok. Many thanks for your patience.

So, NO is the right answer.

-Robert

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: chess9
We don't know anything about the people who received the bonuses. Did they single-handedly, or in concert, bring down the American economy or some constituent part? Probably not. But, even if they did, disclosing their names would not help the government or us, and would subject them to the possibility of physical harm. Who wants that on their conscience?

So, no. This is a very very bad idea.

-Robert

For more clarity on who's receiving the bonuses and if they are responsible for the mess and how are they receiving a retaining bonus if they have left the company, here is a clip form the AIG hearing yesterday.

Text

Drag the slider to around 4hrs 22mins and wait till the questions were answered which ends around 4hrs 29min.

Various parts to the story, but it looks like a witch hunt, doesn't it? Still, witch hunt or not, this entire thing is a silly distraction away from many hundreds of billions, truly a magnitude of many thousands more than these bonuses.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

10 votes so far for yes? I thought the libs hated McCarthy

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Various parts to the story, but it looks like a witch hunt, doesn't it? Still, witch hunt or not, this entire thing is a silly distraction away from many hundreds of billions, truly a magnitude of many thousands more than these bonuses.

You would think that the media would at least talk about what actually happened at the hearing. All the clips you see are these Congressmen supposedly "grilling" the CEO, not the responses from the said CEO.

 

[sactoking]

What would making the names public accomplish? Are we hoping to guilt them into returning the bonuses?

The more likely result is that someone who's unstable hunts down and kills at least one bonus recipient.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Various parts to the story, but it looks like a witch hunt, doesn't it? Still, witch hunt or not, this entire thing is a silly distraction away from many hundreds of billions, truly a magnitude of many thousands more than these bonuses.

You would think that the media would at least talk about what actually happened at the hearing. All the clips you see are these Congressmen supposedly "grilling" the CEO, not the responses from the said CEO.

I only recently learned the CEO came out of retirement to help fix the mess, too, so it's not like he's squirming under the bright lights of interogationm, nor should he necessarily.

 

[Double Trouble]

<brings out the pitchforks and torches>

Burn them at the stakes! Witches, all of them! Burn them!

Sad to see the country reduced to this kind of mentality.

The REAL blame here lies with the idiots in government that 1) allowed this mess to happen, 2) make it worse by repeatedly bailing AIG out without setting proper terms and conditions 3) are now trying to cover their political backsides by pretending to be outraged when they knew damn well that these bonuses were agreed on when they first bailed out the company.

Put the blame for this one where it really lies: the stupid politicians.